John Thune

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Crapo), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. Johnson), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Cassidy), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Marshall) would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, if there is anything that keeps my Democrat colleagues up at night, I am pretty sure it is the specter of some aspect of society not being regulated by the Federal Government. How else to explain Democrats' tendency to propose heavyhanded government solutions to address nonexistent problems? There is no better example of a heavyhanded government solution to a nonexistent problem than the Biden Federal Communications Commission's recent push to impose burdensome net neutrality regulations. So what is net neutrality, Mr. President? Well, at its core, it is the idea that internet service providers shouldn't prioritize or block certain internet traffic at the expense of other traffic. Understood in that way, it is a concept that has strong bipartisan support, but that is not what we are talking about with the Biden FCC's proposal. The Biden FCC wants to use the idea of net neutrality as a cover to assert broad, new government powers over the internet using rules that were designed for telephone monopolies back during the Great Depression. The net neutrality regime the Biden FCC is contemplating was actually put in place once before--during the Obama administration--and the results were predictable. The Obama FCC's measure opened the door to a whole host of new government regulations, including price regulations, and broadband investment declined as a result. That was a problem for Americans generally, who benefit when the United States is at the forefront of internet growth and expansion. It was particularly bad news for Americans in rural States like South Dakota. Getting broadband to rural communities is already more challenging than installing broadband in cities and suburbs, and the possibility of heavier regulations acts as a further disincentive to expanding that access. Fast-forward to 2017. The FCC, under Chairman Pai, voted to repeal the heavyhanded net neutrality regulations passed by the Obama FCC--a prospect that was greeted with absolute hysteria from Democrats. We were told that the internet as we know it would disappear, that providers would slow speeds to a crawl, and if you can believe this, that our freedom of speech was threatened. Well, I don't think I need to tell anyone that none of what Democrats predicted came to pass. As anyone who has been on the internet lately knows, the internet has not just survived but thrived. Innovation has flourished. Competition has increased. The internet remains a vehicle for free and open discourse. And internet speeds have not only not slowed down, they have gotten faster and faster. Despite the explosive growth and internet usage during the pandemic, American networks had no problem keeping up with demand, delivering the reliable service Americans have come to expect. Let's contrast that with Europe, where internet regulation is much more heavyhanded and Europe struggled to deal with increased internet usage. In fact, European service providers slowed internet speeds to maintain connectivity. The United States is now a leader in adopting next-generation telecommunications services like 5G and advanced Wi-Fi while Europe struggles to keep pace. So, as I said, the Biden FCC's net neutrality proposal is a solution--and, I would argue, a heavyhanded government solution--in search of a problem, and it is likely to create problems where none currently exist. Given the Biden administration's demonstrated willingness to use its regulatory power to advance its far-left economic and social agendas, it is not hard to imagine the Biden administration using its new net neutrality powers to shape Americans' internet experience for its own ends. The FCC's net neutrality proposal could hasten the demise of the free and open internet it is allegedly--allegedly--supposed to protect. On the practical side, as FCC Commissioner Carr--a Republican appointee who opposes this proposal--has pointed out, there is also good reason to fear that this measure could drive up Americans' internet costs and open the door to new taxes and fees on Americans' internet bills. Of course, as I said, last time heavyhanded net neutrality regulations were put in place, broadband investment declined in response, and there is good reason to believe that the same thing would happen this time. The United States could quickly lose its place as a leader in internet technology, and Americans could lose out on the benefits of living in a country that is at the forefront of internet innovation. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to emphasize again just how much the Biden FCC's proposal is a solution in search of a problem. There is absolutely no reason--no reason--for heavyhanded government interference in a free, open, and thriving sector of our economy. There is every reason to oppose a proposal that would not only threaten to raise prices and decrease innovation but would give the Federal Government and the Biden administration a dangerous amount of control over Americans' internet experience. I have led a letter with more than 40 of my colleagues calling for the Biden FCC to abandon this just incredibly ill-advised proposal, and I will continue to urge my colleagues of both parties to oppose this alarming measure because if the Biden FCC has its way, we may soon find ourselves dealing with the very opposite of net neutrality. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso.)

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott) and the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Tillis) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, this past Saturday marked 3 years of the Biden administration. After 3 full years under President Biden, the question naturally arises, Is America better off? Are Americans better off? For a whole lot of Americans, the answer is no. In a December poll, 55 percent of voters said they are worse off under President Biden. In a January poll, 46 percent of voters said their personal financial situation is getting worse compared to just 28 percent who said it is improving. A recent ABC News article noted: In a dispiriting sign of the times, barely more than a quarter of Americans say the American dream still holds true. It is no wonder because perhaps the biggest legacy of the President's first 3 years in office is a massive inflation crisis that has still-- still--not gone away. Inflation may have descended from the stratospheric heights it reached earlier in the President's term, but we are still stuck with an inflation rate well above the Federal Reserve's target rate of 2 percent. And inflation actually ticked up again in December by a not insignificant margin. The practical effect has been that a whole lot of Americans have seen their breathing room disappear under President Biden. According to a recent analysis from the members of the Joint Economic Committee here in Congress, a typical household has to spend over $11,000 more each year to maintain the same standard of living it had at the beginning of the Biden administration--$11,000 more each year. That is a staggering amount of money. It is money that a lot of families don't have. So it is not surprising that 55 percent of voters say they are worse off under President Biden. It turns out that when you are spending 20 percent more on groceries, 18 percent more on shelter, 35 percent more on gasoline, and 25 percent more on electricity--and on and on--over the course of just 3 years, you don't feel very prosperous. And I haven't even mentioned how difficult it has gotten for many Americans to achieve the dream of homeownership, thanks in part to rate hikes that the Federal Reserve has had to implement to deal with President Biden's inflation crisis. Suffice it to say that the inflation crisis President Biden helped create with his so-called American Rescue Plan has resulted in economic misery for a lot of Americans. The President will unquestionably be remembered for his massive inflation crisis, but he will also be remembered for presiding over a border crisis of staggering proportions, a crisis that, like the inflation crisis, he had a large hand in creating. From the day he took office, when he rescinded the declaration of a national emergency at our southern border, President Biden made it clear that border security was at the bottom of his priority list. And over the 3 years since, he has turned our southern border into a magnet for illegal migration, from repealing border policies of his predecessor to misusing our asylum and parole systems, which are now providing temporary amnesty to hundreds of thousands of individuals who are here in our country illegally. We have had 3 recordbreaking years of illegal immigration at our southern border on President Biden's watch. Fiscal year 2021 saw a recordbreaking 1,734,686 migrant encounters at our southern border. Then fiscal year 2022 broke that record. Then fiscal year 2023 broke that record. And if fiscal year 2024 continues on its current trajectory, we will end up breaking the record yet again. December reportedly saw a staggering 302,000 migrant encounters at our southern border, the highest monthly number ever recorded. To borrow an analogy from our colleague from Pennsylvania, that is like having the entire city of Pittsburgh show up at our southern border in just 1 month. And that doesn't count the ``got-aways.'' Of course, the overwhelming numbers we are seeing make it easier for dangerous individuals to make their way into our country. Between October and November alone, 30 individuals on the Terrorist Watch List were apprehended attempting to cross our southern border; in other words, roughly 1 every other day. Those are just, again, the individuals who were actually apprehended. Since October 1, there have been more than 83,000 known ``got- aways.'' Those are individuals the Border Patrol saw but were unable to apprehend. How many of them were criminals, terrorists, or other dangerous individuals? The truth of the matter is, we just don't know. But what we do know is that the crisis at our southern border is leaving a gaping hole in our national security, one that the President has spent a majority of the past 3 years essentially ignoring. His border crisis and his inflation crisis might be the two most notable features of the President's first 3 years in office, but the President is also leaving some other troubling legacies. His hostility to conventional energy production and his devotion to Green New Deal policies have put us on a dangerous trajectory when it comes to our Nation's energy security. We are already seeing weaknesses in our electric grid, and the President's energy policies are putting us at risk of significant disruptions to our supply. On the trade front, the President's almost complete lack of action on meaningful trade agreements has meant declining market access for American farmers and ranchers and threatens America's competitiveness in the global market. The weakness the President has frequently demonstrated on the national security front, from his disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan to his attempt to revive President Obama's dangerous nuclear deal with Iran, has compromised America's ability to deter hostile actors on the world stage. I could go on, but I will end it here. Suffice it to say that it has been a rough 3 years for our country under President Biden, and it is not over yet. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Budd) and the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Cramer), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. Hagerty), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. Risch), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I further ask that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. THUNE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 25.

Mr. THUNE

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott), and the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Hawley). Further, if present and voting: the Senator from Missouri Mr. Hawley would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Barrasso), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Grassley), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Scott).